Poisoning as a Weapon in Schools: A New Threat Scenario (part 2)

 

Earlier this year, I wrote about an incident at a Russian school where a 14-year-old student brought a set of chemicals to school, selected one of the dangerous and toxic reagents, deliberately mixed it into a drink, and then offered the poisoned soda to his classmates. Three teenagers were affected, but everything turned out well; thanks to the competent actions of medical professionals, they were discharged from the hospital the very next day.

In the same report, I conducted a brief analysis of the proportion of crimes committed using toxic chemicals out of the total number of attacks - including those with signs of mass murder and terrorist acts - committed in schools and other educational institutions. Over 26 years of observation, there were five such cases, two of which occurred in 2025.

In 2026, the increase in the number of crimes committed using toxic chemicals continued; in just nine months, there were eight such attacks - a 60% increase compared to the previous 26 years:

January 21, Kuyuki, Russia;

February 10, London, United Kingdom;

March 19, Selaya, Mexico;

March 26, Chelyabinsk, Russia;

March 27, Calama, Chile;

September 1, 2026, Kansk, Russia;

September 8, Portland, USA;

September 18, 2026, Rome, Italy.

In 6 cases, the perpetrators used toxic substances as auxiliary weapons; in 5 cases, it was tear gas, and in 1 case, the attacker used a household insecticide in an aerosol can.

Two cases deserve special attention: the one on January 21 in Russia, which I mentioned earlier, and the recent incident at Benson Polytechnic High School in Portland, USA.

A 15-year-old student brought household chemicals - which are freely available for purchase - from home to school and then mixed them in the school cafeteria. As a result of a chemical reaction, extremely toxic and dangerous gases began to be released and spread rapidly throughout the room. The suspect himself lost consciousness at the scene after inhaling the toxic fumes and was hospitalized in critical condition. Seven people required medical attention, and more than 100 students and school staff were evacuated as a precaution.

If we assess the situation objectively, we can say that everything turned out all right - no one other than the perpetrator himself was seriously injured. However, the situation is more complicated than it seems at first glance. Based on an analysis of media reports and statements by police and FBI officials, this crime was planned and carried out with the active participation of online extremist communities - or, as they are also known, «Death groups» - operating on social media and messaging apps.

I cannot say for certain - this is merely one theory among many - that the teenager did not devise the attack plan himself; in this case, he was merely the perpetrator. It is likely that those behind the organization of this crime needed to carry out an attack that would result in mass casualties and generate significant public outcry. Poisonous substances are a type of weapon well-suited for such an operation. Furthermore, judging by the instructions and chemical components found on the perpetrator during a search, in addition to poisonous substances, he also planned to use homemade explosive devices. And that represents an entirely different level of threat. An explosive device that causes not only thermal, blast, and shrapnel damage (if it contains projectiles) but also deliberate chemical poisoning is, in effect, the use of a weapon of mass destruction - albeit on a local scale.

In this case, it is most likely that the perpetrator acted on his own initiative, carrying out the attack earlier than his handlers had planned and failing to properly execute the task assigned to him. If this is the case, there will soon be new attacks on schools and other educational institutions following a similar pattern. When carrying out these attacks, the perpetrators will take into account and correct the mistakes and miscalculations they made during the planning and execution of the attack at Benson High School in Portland.

What should be done?

If we ask what schools and other educational institutions can currently do to counter criminals and terrorists, the answer - as sad as it may be - offers little cause for optimism. The growing number of attacks in 2026 (in just nine months, the all-time highs set in 2025 and 2014 have already been surpassed) clearly indicates that educational facilities have always been - and remain - easy targets for criminals. None of the security measures touted by the authorities and law enforcement agencies are working.

A few years ago, while working on the Comprehensive Security System for Educational Facilities project, I took into account the likelihood that criminals might use chemical agents. Therefore, the project includes measures for both preventing and countering this type of threat. However, to date, this project has not been implemented anywhere, not even on a pilot basis; therefore, we will proceed based on the actual capabilities available—there aren’t many, but they do exist.

1. Restrict access to chemical reagents in school buildings and other educational institutions.

If the security checkpoint does not have a scanner with a content analysis system, or if a thorough inspection of all backpacks is not conducted, the only thing security personnel and school administrators can focus on is paying attention to large quantities of liquids being brought in. It is important to understand that a school is typically a building with large rooms, wide hallways, high ceilings, large windows, and an extensive ventilation system. This means that to effectively cause harm with toxic substances, a high concentration in the air is required - and therefore, a significant quantity of the substances themselves is needed.

This is a vulnerability that must be exploited: it is impossible to smuggle in a large volume covertly; it must be brought in little by little over several stages, which means it must be stockpiled and stored somewhere. Security and school staff must take these circumstances into account and organize their work in such a way as to block both possible channels* wherever possible.

The task is made somewhat easier by the fact that we are dealing not with professional smugglers, but with amateurs with extremely limited and, for the most part, theoretical experience in such activities. Although they consider themselves smarter than others, in most cases they are not.

It is equally important to keep in mind that chemical reagents are also present within the school itself - in the chemistry, physics, and biology labs, the first-aid room, and the storage room for cleaning and disinfecting supplies. Measures must be taken to prevent unauthorized access to these areas. At a minimum: secure doors and locks, at least a basic alarm system to detect unauthorized entry, and placement within the field of view of surveillance cameras.

2. Rehearsing procedures in the event of a threat involving the release of toxic substances.

Developing (if none exists) and incorporating into the educational institution’s existing safety protocol a detailed procedure for officials to follow in the event of an attack involving toxic chemicals. It is best to invite someone with practical experience in addressing such threats, such as from relevant government agencies or the military. Ideally, this person should conduct a site inspection of the school and participate as an observer during practical drills. Based on the results of these observations, they will make additional revisions to the safety protocol and provide recommendations on organizing drills and training exercises according to the specified scenario.

One or more staff members of the educational institution should undergo training in specialized courses on responding to emergencies involving the use of toxic substances. Not a formal online course that provides a certificate rather than knowledge, but a real, in-person course taught by instructors with actual experience in this field. This is necessary because at the very beginning, when a threat is identified, one of two possible decisions must be made: evacuation or containment.  The number of casualties, the extent of harm to their health, and other negative consequences of the threat depend directly on the correctness of this decision. To make the right decision, one must understand both the threat itself and the processes involved - and this requires knowledge.

3. Personal Protective Equipment and Threat Mitigation Measures.

Educational institutions must purchase at least a minimum quantity of respiratory personal protective equipment for the most vulnerable categories of staff and students (e.g., those with health or mobility limitations).

Train staff on how to implement primary measures to neutralize and mitigate the negative consequences of a threat using available technical resources. For example, smoke exhaust valves - which are found in many educational institutions as part of fire safety systems - can be used in this case to provide forced ventilation of the room. Activating them promptly can significantly reduce the concentration of toxic substances in the air within a short period of time.

These simple and relatively inexpensive measures will allow schools and other educational institutions, as well as organizations where large numbers of children gather, to at least slightly reduce the risk of an attack involving chemical agents. And in the event that such an attack does occur, they will significantly mitigate its negative consequences, primarily in terms of the number of fatalities and injuries.

All of the above are passive measures aimed solely at containing the threat and mitigating its consequences. We cannot rely solely on them or on the assumption that the next criminal will make another mistake; such a strategy is disastrous. Extremist groups like «764», «Red Dolphin», «Maniacs: Cult of Killers», «NLM», and others like them have, in effect, declared open war on society, targeting its most vulnerable members – children - as their victims. The question is: what comes next? Will we continue to pretend that nothing is happening, or will we begin to respond—not with passive deterrence, but aggressively and decisively?

I invite everyone who cares about this issue to participate in an applied project aimed at countering online extremist communities - or, as they are also known, «Death groups» - on social media and messaging apps. This has long ceased to be a problem for a single country or even a single continent; it is a global threat, and we can only confront it by working together.

* Many of you are probably wondering: What exactly are these measures? Yes, I am deliberately not revealing all the details. Which elements of the security system limit a criminal’s capabilities - and how and why they do so - remains, in part, beyond the scope of this article. Why? Because this article is publicly available. It’s read not only by those interested in child safety, but also by those with directly opposing intentions. Experts in cause-and-effect relationships will understand without any hints. And I have no intention of giving advice to malicious actors.

Author: Roman Grishin

author's page on the portal

 

#poisoning #attack #toxic #substances #chemistry #Portland #USA #Oregon #school #crime #chemical #weapons #mass #destruction #safety #protocol #extremism #threat #security #safety #prevention #counteraction